The Pedshed Series (more)

The previous post was rather abstract and referred to differences in terms of area that an improved pedshed around a railway station would make. But public transport doesn't exist to serve areas; it serves people and jobs.

Previously we mentioned a hypothetical improvement where a station's 10 minute was increased from 800 to 880 metres. The areas covered are as follows:

* 800 metre pedshed: 3.14*(800*800) or 2 009 600 m2

* 880 metre pedshed: 3.14*(880*880) or 2 431 616 m2

The difference is about 400 000 m2.

400 000 m2 doesn't mean much to most people, so let's put it in more familiar terms. It's 40 hectares. A typical residential area comprising mostly houses on seperate blocks (but a few units) might have 15 homes per hectare. Or a population of 600 assuming 3 per dwelling.

Of that 600, let's assume that 100 would regularly take public transport to work or school if it was near enough (ie within the 10 min pedshed). Assuming an average spend of $1000 per year per passenger that's an extra $100k fare revenue per year obtainable. If these commuters took 400 trips per year, that's an extra 40 000 trips per year, generated from that one station. And, unless services are crowded, these good results are possible at no cost except for the relatively modest works required to improve pedsheds.

Further improvements are possible in denser areas and where several measures are taken to improve pedsheds. For instance, as well as a pedestrian crossing or underpass, extra entrances onto platforms can be built. This is particularly effective where entries/exits at at one end (eg Frankston). The length of a railway platform is about 160 metres so the pedshed gains of a second entrance are considerable.

Now what about jobs, which, at least in CBD areas, is much denser than housing? I do not know how many jobs typically exist in 40 hectares. However gains of several thousand per improvement are not unreasonable.